San Francisco’s ethics watchdogs say Mark Farrell’s 2024 mayoral bid has some explaining to do.
A fresh audit by the San Francisco Ethics Commission found “significant” lapses in Farrell’s 2024 mayoral campaign, citing missing subvendor disclosures, incomplete donor records and expenses logged in the wrong reporting periods. The report, released on Monday, reviewed the committee’s 2024 filings and concluded that while the campaign substantially complied overall, several material problems were serious enough to send on for follow-up. The commission says the audit and its supporting records will be forwarded to its enforcement team for further review and possible action.
Audit details: what staff found
Auditors sampled 133 expenditures and identified 16 transactions, 12 percent of the sample, totaling $698,476, where support records showed payments to subvendors over $500 or where documentation appeared incomplete, according to the Ethics Commission. The report notes the committee disclosed only three Schedule G subvendor payments totaling $55,471, and auditors extrapolated that about 9 percent of the total population of expenditures likely lacked required documentation. Auditors also stressed that when backup is missing, they cannot verify whether some spending was actually campaign-related.
Specific findings and scale
The audit found the committee reported $2,616,230 in revenue and made or incurred $2,647,568 in expenditures for 2024, and that 9 percent of sampled expenses, equal to $6,898, had no supporting records, as reported by Mission Local. Auditors also flagged expenses recorded in the wrong time period in 8.3 percent of cases and incomplete information for 215 donors, about 7.6 percent of the donor list. The report singled out a $556,310 payment to Canal Partners Media where the committee did not disclose the broadcasters and other subvendors used for ad buys.
Campaign response and past penalties
The audit includes the committee treasurer’s response. The Money Wheel, LLC, told auditors it “promptly” reached out to subvendors and maintained records for the vast majority of expenses, and that some missing items were minor and could be corroborated by bank statements, according to the Ethics Commission. The document also notes that many of the committee’s miscellaneous cash increases were reimbursements tied to the Prop D committee, an issue that already led to a historic $108,179.99 penalty in October 2024. That earlier settlement addressed prohibited contributions and was, at the time, the largest penalty in the commission’s history, according to SFGATE.
What happens next
The Ethics Commission says the report and its supporting documentation will be sent to the Enforcement Division for further investigation and possible enforcement, a referral Mission Local also noted. If Enforcement pursues the matter, it could seek administrative penalties or other remedies. The audit cautions that its scope was limited to 2024 and that additional conduct could be reviewed.
For watchdogs and voters, the findings spotlight ongoing transparency problems in San Francisco campaign finance and just how hard it can be to trace money once it starts moving through consultants, media buyers and other political vendors.
